Surreptitiousness wrote: > George Herbert wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who >>> can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce >>> the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would >>> allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated >>> a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things >>> up. That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which >>> they try not to do. >>> >>> >> You can't just throw out a possible new arbcom membership requirement >> without considering the effects. >> >> > You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes? People are too scared too > propose anything radical? We're not short of proposals, usually. Progress could be made with further functions being split off, in the way that ban appeals are now a subcommittee function. There is no particular reason why socking or civility cases shouldn't be handled in this fashion, where the evidence is clear-cut enough (the usual case). The kind of radical change people don't want to see is from something monolithic that works (despite grumbling) to something else equally monolithic that is a complete step in the dark and unknown quantity. And don't forget that proposals have been howled down, in living memory - at least if you take a pile-on of a dozen people to be an expression of public opinion.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
